HC Rejects Writ Against GST Demand on BOT Annuity Project

Case Details: Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 95 (Meghalaya)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

H.S. Thangkhiew & B. Bhattacharjee, JJ.
S. Ghosh, Sr Adv., Philemon Nongbri, Ms A. Agarwal, Ms M. Wariach & E. Lalsangluaia, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Dr N. Mozika, DSGI, Ms M. Myrchiang, Adv., N. Syngkon & J.N. Rynjah, GAs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, engaged in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Jorabat-Shillong Expressway under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) annuity model, challenged the GST demand raised on annuity payments received from the Government. It was contended that the services were covered by the exemption relating to access to a road on payment of annuity and that the concession agreement, having been executed prior to the introduction of GST, no tax liability could arise. The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the officers issuing the show cause notice and adjudication order and challenged the validity of the relevant notifications and circulars empowering such officers. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner was primarily engaged in works contract services involving construction, operation and maintenance of roads and that the annuity represented consideration for such taxable services. The dispute was accordingly placed before the Meghalaya High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the petitioner had an effective statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act and that the issues raised involved the interpretation of statutory provisions and the classification of services, which could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority. It further held that the officers issuing the show cause notice and adjudication order were duly empowered as “proper officers” under the relevant notifications issued under the CGST Act. The Court declined to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, observing that none of the recognised exceptions warranting bypass of the alternate remedy had been established.

List of Cases Referred to

DPJ Bidar – Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2022] 140 taxmann.com 465/93 GST 395/65 GSTL 38 (Karnataka) (para 11)
Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark [1998] 8 SCC 1 (para 14)
Onkar Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1985] 4 SCC 404 (para 14)
Filter Co. v. CST AIR 1986 SC 626 (para 14)
Canon India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2015] 60 taxmann.com 251 (Mad) (para 14)
Vistar Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 30 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi) (para 14)
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer cum-Assessing
Authority 2023 SCC Online SC 95 (para 14)
Aircel Ltd. v. CTO [W.P.(C) No. 1055 of 2013] (para 14)
Union of India v. State of Haryana [2000] 10 SCC 482 (para 14)
Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons [2007] 8 SCC 559 (para 14)
Raza Textiles v. ITO AIR 1973 SC 1362 (para 14)
Calcutta Discount Co. v. ITO AIR 1961 SC 372 (para 14)
NCS Pearson Inc. v. Union of India [2025] 178 taxmann.com 452 (Karnataka) (para 14)
Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2006] 12 SCC 33 (para 14)
Onyx Fisheries Ltd. v. Union of India [2010] 13 SCC 427 (para 14)
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 (para 14)
R.C. Infra Digital Solutions v. Union of India [2024] 158 taxmann.com 272/104 GST 267/86 GSTL 468 (Allahabad) (para 24)
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373 (SC) (para 24)
Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. 1991 taxmann.com 31 (SC) (para 25)
Union of India v. Gurbux Singh [1975] 3 SCC 638 (para 25)
Bela Singh Daulat Singh v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 250 (All) (para 47)
Indo- Gulf Fertilizers and Chemicals Corporation Limited v. Union of India [1992] 64 Taxman 96 / 195 ITR 485 (All) (para 47)